Comments by Barry Parr

Local Government Committee passes AB1991—next stop: Appropriations Committee

The hearing is now scheduled for May 22.  I believe this is the last possible date for a hearing for this particular bill.

HMB’s Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English

Even Judge Walker would say that the development proposed by the city is illegal. That’s why the city is trying to change the law.  I’m hardly a no-growther and have always been prepared to support reasonable, legal development of Beachwood.

The rule of law is a meaningless concept if you can get yourself released from it in exchange for money.

HMB release says dozens of citizens headed to Sacramento to support AB1991

This kind of astroturfing has the added advantage of crowding out other citizens who oppose the bill.  Comcast used this technique in recent FCC hearings to keep Net Neutrality supporters out of seats.

What is the message of the HMB citizens?  “We’d really like you to void state and local law for Mr. Keenan so we don’t have to pay this settlement we negotiated.”

The more you look at it, the clearer it is that the city knows it negotiated a lousy deal and wants us to liquidate (convert into cash) our laws to bail them out.

HMB will owe a lot less than $18 million if AB1991 fails

Yes, this would be a complex transaction and the timing would be difficult.  But the city must have given some thought to this. A big part of why they hired Orrick in the first place was their municipal finance expertise.

We have to believe the city has a contingency plan, but they won’t tell us or the legislature what it is. They’re treating AB1991 as a hostile negotiation, not a partnership.

Environmental groups outline why they oppose AB1991

On the conference call, the city made the point that the environmental groups (and the Coastal Commission) had a lot of good ideas for making the settlement more palatable, but unfortunately it was too late.

The city council gets credit for the decision not to consult these stakeholders (or the citizens of HMB for that matter) in putting together the settlement.  It could be this decision more than any other that dooms AB1991.

HMB lawyers issue city’s statement on AB 1991

Not necessarily all that odd.

According to Wikipedia: “Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is an international law firm founded in San Francisco. Orrick traces its roots back to 1863, making it the oldest continuously-operating law firm in San Francisco, and the second-oldest privately-held company in San Francisco after Levi Strauss.”

However, that doesn’t answer the question about why the release came out of DC and the spinners are located there as well. I can’t imagine Lanny Davis’s hourly rate for answering FAQ’s!

Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

“Weeds over people” is of course a straw man. How about “this inflexible attitude of money over the law”, or “money over people”, or “money over common sense”, or “money over the environment”, or “money über alles”.

I haven’t a clue whether the vegetation at Beachwood is weeds or natural coastal scrub or some combination that thrives in degraded environments.

I support infill development, as long as it is done in compliance with the law, in cooperation with local authorities, at a rate consistent with good planning, and in a fashion that is sustainable and humane. The Beachwood settlement is none of those things.

And I certainly agree with Steve that our fast-food and other lighted-plastic-sign establishments are a blight that bring with them the excuse for further trashy development of the kind envisioned in the settlement.

Coastal Commission takes on AB1991

I think it would be more effective if you refuted Steve’s arguments instead of questioning his motives.

Steve, as I pointed out earlier, it’s possible to get big projects approved reasonably fast. But you’ve got to follow the law. Flouting the law is what leads to appeals and delays. That’s a pretty consistent pattern.

Personally, I think the city could have pulled off AB1991 if they hadn’t overreached.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Non-residents of HMB clearly have a direct stake in AB1991. It’s a state law and has a direct impact on the future enforcement of state environmental laws as well as the Coastal Act.  Assembly members and state senators from all over California get to vote on this issue.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

At this stage, debate over the definition and source of the wetlands is a waste of time.  The new reality is the settlement and its homely lovechild AB1991.

And the question is whether it should become law. If AB1991 fails and the city is looking at developing the land, we’ll get to argue about Beachwood’s wetness to our hearts’ content.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

Roy, how do you figure?

The wetlands definition was written by HMB, they were found to have created the wetlands, and they negotiated the settlement.

HMB to Sacramento: If you don’t support AB1991, we’ll kill this dog

I agree that you can’t take property without compensation.

I still think the city had a good argument that (1) they didn’t make Beachwood into wetlands and that even if you thought they did (2) the owner was at least as responsible as they were. They chose not to press the matter.

In the words of the anonymous author(s) of the city’s press release, “Now is not the time to ask what might have been”.

Now is the time to ask “Who should pay for the city’s settlement?”

I think the city of Half Moon Bay should pay. It’s a bad idea to pay the city’s settlement by selling dispensation from state and local law.

HMB’s lawyers “educating” environmental groups about AB1991

I loved that quote. The only reason I didn’t put it up was that I felt I’d already quoted enough from the original article.

If I remember correctly, the Coastal Commission didn’t create wetlands at Beachwood.

And, the city no longer contests the judge’s finding that they did.

HMB lawyers issue city’s statement on AB 1991

It seems to me that when you hire a high-priced law firm, you get someone who is sufficiently familiar with elementary logic to get a good score on the LSAT’s.

Just a cursory reading exposes these two logical flaws:

1. Yes, the legislature has only two options. The only reason why the legislature is presented with this stark choice is that the city of Half Moon Bay and Messrs Orrick, et al., structured it that way. That is not our problem—or Orrick’s problem—that is Half Moon Bay’s problem.

2. When attorneys use the word “precedent” they mean something a lot more formal than what we mean in everyday conversation. There is no question that AB1991 establishes a precedent for using the legislature for getting around inconvenient state environmental laws.

For example, if you publicly perform sex for money, you don’t create for yourself a legally-binding requirement to do so in the future, but you can expect more offers to do so in the future. That is called a “precedent”.

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

It doesn’t always have to take a long time to get a project approved. The Carnoustie development at Ocean Colony and Cameron Palmer’s Birds of Paradise RV park—both on the west side of highway 1—sailed through the process with general approval from both the pro-development and slow-growth sides of the aisle.

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

Steve says:

I’ve always been told that you have to carefully pick your battles.  Its also better to compramise than to fight everything to the end.  Its too bad we don’t practice that here.

I’ve always been told that you don’t compromise on the law. That’s what the city is proposing to do: allow Chop Keenan to ignore state laws in exchange for money.

Letter: CFPD is free to contract with CalFire

A copy of the opinion can be found here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A118789.PDF

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

Anyone want to place a bet on whether the city council’s proposed increase in Transient Occupancy (hotel) Tax will pass in the June 3 election if the fate of AB1991 is still up in the air during the election?

Video: HMB City Council announces Beachwood settlement

It turns out that the video was interrupted when there was a problem with the power supply to the camera. It’s my understanding that MCTV’s camera had the same problem.

HMB settlement gives Keenan 129 houses on Beachwood and Glencree—and more

$18 million may the right number for a dollar settlement. Without knowing the likelihood and cost of various outcomes, it’s hard to say. 

It puts the probability of completely overturning the decision somewhere around 50% (depending how you estimate and allocate attorney fees), so it may not be an unreasonable amount.

That’s not the issue. The issue is that the settlement precludes an appeal or further negotiation if AB1991 fails to pass. That’s extortion. Under the circumstances, Messrs. Yee and Mullin are within their rights to reconsider their support of the settlement, which is probably not what was described to them before April Fool’s Day.

Page 4 of 26 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »